the way forward for refereeing?

[dudebudstud]

According to law the TMO can only rule on acts in goal. So the TMO was technically not allowed to make a judgment on the forward pass.

I think one of two things should happen.

1. The TMO should still only be allowed to look at a play based on the ref's request but in the act of scoring they can look as far back as the last breakdown.
2. Each captain is given 1 or 2 challenges a game where they can ask the ref to consult the TMO. The captain would have to request the challenge immediately at the next stoppage of play. And to discourage captains from using the challenge to slow down play, if their challenge is incorrect it is a FK to the opposing team.

I prefer option 1.

 

[Lee Grant]

The sooner the IRB adopt what the French do in their domestic rugby, the better.

The French have dispensation from the IRB to use the TMO more liberally in their domestic rugby. The refs are allowed to ask about all kinds of matters in the lead up to a try. In the Top14 once last season they questioned a possible obstruction 25 metres out. The answer was no - so the try was given.

Andrew Small, the touchie in the game, did poorly as he seemed to be in the right position to view the forward pass. Or, if he did report it, as Nusadan suggests is possible, Clancy should have taken his advice.

My point is that the French system gives another opportunity for accuracy. The touchie reckons a pass may be forward? Tell the ref and he will then be compelled to ask the TMO for try, no try, as usual. I am unclear whether or not the referee has to mention to the TMO the possibility that a pass may be forward near the goal line or if it forms part of the try, no try, decision of the TMO without mention, but it doesn't matter because it works well.

I know what the objections to the French method will be from folks that don't watch the Top14 regularly as I do. It will slow down a game that is already slow enough. It doesn't: use of the TMO for matters outside the norm of IRB TMO is minimal and you hardly ever see it invoked.

Give it a go after the RWC IRB; there is nothing to lose.
.

 

[Skippy]

I dont know - offside in wogball is pretty straightforward (like most things in that game!).

I don't think the term 'wogball' is appropriate or acceptable. I'd like to think as people, as a society and as a country we've moved past racist stereotypes.

 

[qwerty51]

The TMO is allowed to have a chat with the referee. He just simply stated the pass was forward. Still up to the referee to use his advice to award the try or not. It's the referee's decision, he would've known he was breaking protocol by using the TMO's advice.

 

[HKTiger]

Common sense prevailed. The TMO asked "do you want additional info" (or something like that) the ref said "yes". "The last pass was forward." Try disallowed. That's physically what happened. A blatant forward pass and a ref took an intelligent approach. Thought Clancy had a good game myself.

 

[Blob]

Awful lot of ignorance being spouted on this thread and the match thread. The TMO protocoal states:

The areas of adjudication are limited to Law 6. 8 (b), 6.8 (d) and 6.8 (e) and therefore relate to:

Grounding of the ball for try and touch down
Touch, touch-in-goal, ball being made dead during the act of grounding the ball.

This includes situations where a player may or may not have stepped in touch in the act of grounding the ball on or over the goal line.

The TMO could therefore be requested to assist the referee in making the following decisions:
Try No try and scrum awarded 5 metres
Touch down by a defender In touch – line-out
Touch-in-goal Ball dead on or over the dead ball line Penalty tries after acts of foul play in in-goal All kicks at goal including dropped goals.

The TMO must not be requested to provide information on players prior to the ball going into in-goal (except touch in the act of grounding the ball). The TMO must not be asked to assist in any other decision other than those listed. The referee must make an effort to make an adjudication. If he is unsighted or has doubt, he will then use the following process (4).

There is no way the TMO had the authority to pass on the information or for the ref to use it. Clear contravention then.

Overall it's a funny one though because it shows the the hypocrisy and inconsistency in many peoples' thinking. Despite all the moaning about how inconsistent the refs (and citing commissions) are, here we have a directive designed to create a consistent application of the law and people want to throw it out and allow refs and TMOS to adjudicate according to whatever criteria they decide is appropriate in a given situation. That, for the hard of thinking, is a recipe for inconsistency.

 

[antipodean]

Based on the events of the weekend's Tri Nations clash between the Springboks and All Blacks at Port Elizabeth, should the TMO be able to adjudicate on matters in the lead up to a try being scored?

[video=youtube;-8sg5rDiqIY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8sg5rDiqIY[/video]

I say no for the simple reason that an arbitrary line in the sand is required and having one painted on the ground is good enough. Otherwise, dollars to cents, something obvious will be unable to be adjudicated on in the future and make a mockery of the system.

Here's a good interview with Paddy O'Brien on this.

[edit] Well said Blob.

 

[Bruwheresmycar]

Wow, thanks for the interview link. Paddy is pissed!

 

[Dan54]

Actually in answer to your first post sjq, there is an absolute ruling on whether it should happen, just the Refs ignored ruling. I like the fact that it happened now, because of the bit of controversy I think all Refs will be made very aware of such rules at WC. And as an AB supporter I really didn't want to swee it awarded as it was obviously forward.

 

[Ash]

I think most rugby fans would prefer to see those tries not awarded (see: NZ v France reffed by Barnes), but agree with the line in the sand. NRL don't allow rulings on forward passes because of how subjective it is with the ball travelling out of the hands backwards. I am not sure that allowing the TMO to rule on forward passes would be a good thing, due to the whole grey area in forward passes (only at pace, mind you).

Incidentally, there were two blatant forward passes in that play for me - Cowan to Dagg, then Dagg to Cowan. Don't know how the first was missed.

 

[antipodean]

Because the first wasn't forward.

 

[I like to watch]

When I talk Rugby with friends and watch rugby shows on tv, there has never been an obsession about reffing decisions,there may sometimes be a passing reference to it but then the attention is then back on the players and particular bits of play in the game. I love that about Rugby.
I look at League and discussions about refs have plagued the game for years. sometimes commentators complain abot reffing decisions BEFORE the game or before a decision has been made.
I hope we do not go down the same path. (complaining about Kaplan refereeing the tahs being the obvious exception)

 

[Sandpit Fan]

The thing which seems to have been overlooked in all this is the mind blowing incompetence of the AR's. They have missed the most glaring things for 2 weeks in a row, despite being in a good position to see.

 

[Nusadan]

Sandpit, in defence of the AR, you will notice in the clip above that he communicated to the referee when the ball was grounded and I would daresay he wouldn't be telling him anything else other than to advise him of the forward pass.

What I don't understand if it's the case then, that the referee still had to go to the TMO...?

 

[Blob]

Sandpit, in defence of the AR, you will notice in the clip above that he communicated to the referee when the ball was grounded and I would daresay he wouldn't be telling him anything else other than to advise him of the forward pass.

What I don't understand if it's the case then, that the referee still had to go to the TMO...?

So... you don't understand something you made up yourself?

 

[Gnostic]

I find it interesting that so many would rather see a wrong decision for the sake of a 'PROTOCOL'. Is this protocol actually a LAW in the first place and secondly whilst I agree that there does have to be a line in the sand, this was a metre off the line in the act of scoring. I wonder how many of those objecting to this correct decision because of the technicalities are lawyers. It is truly warped ethics to prefer a wrong decision for the sake of the wording of a law and not the spirit for which it was framed.

 

[Blob]

I find it interesting that so many would rather see a wrong decision for the sake of a 'PROTOCOL'. Is this protocol actually a LAW in the first place and secondly whilst I agree that there does have to be a line in the sand, this was a metre off the line in the act of scoring. I wonder how many of those objecting to this correct decision because of the technicalities are lawyers. It is truly warped ethics to prefer a wrong decision for the sake of the wording of a law and not the spirit for which it was framed.

Not a fan of consistency huh? The thing about lines in the sand is that the line is the line. The line is not metre before the line unless a metre before the line is the line. But what if it's a metre before that? That would make the new line 2 metres before the line, but I suppose that we can forgive the metre before that seing as it is within a metre of the new 2 metres before the line line, which would make the line 3 metres before the line. Etc.

The point is about process, transparency and consistency. If we have a process that everyone follows and that everyone knows we can expect roughly similar outcomes in most instances. If we have no process, which is what the anti-protocolists are asking for, then we have a situation where the referee applies random rules and criteria. A process approach might throw up the old anomaly, but it's a darned sight better than having referees make it up as they go, which is what Clancy and the TMO did in this instance.

 

[ACT Crusader]

Here's a scenario, a team on attack down the right flank 30-40m out with an overlap player x makes a pass to player y on the wing that looks forward, the defending team stops chasing thinking the ref should blow his whistle, the ref doesn't, player y goes in and scores a pie. But the ref wonders why everyone stops. Should the ref go up stairs? Does he have an obligation to go upstairs to ensure 'justice'? It was the play directly before the try.

Just for interests sake I have seen this very thing happen in the past.

Early detachments from scrums, illegal ruck entry, knock ons etc have all occurred just prior to the act of grounding, is there an obligation for the TMO to now offer more.

As we know the adjudication of forward passes are just as arbitrary as all those other aspects of the game, so I also don't buy into the fact that just forward passes can be in the "blatant" category.

 

[Gnostic]

Not a fan of consistency huh? The thing about lines in the sand is that the line is the line. The line is not metre before the line unless a metre before the line is the line. But what if it's a metre before that? That would make the new line 2 metres before the line, but I suppose that we can forgive the metre before that seing as it is within a metre of the new 2 metres before the line line, which would make the line 3 metres before the line. Etc.

The point is about process, transparency and consistency. If we have a process that everyone follows and that everyone knows we can expect roughly similar outcomes in most instances. If we have no process, which is what the anti-protocolists are asking for, then we have a situation where the referee applies random rules and criteria. A process approach might throw up the old anomaly, but it's a darned sight better than having referees make it up as they go, which is what Clancy and the TMO did in this instance.

You missed the whole point.

Whilst the ref breached PROTOCOL, he enforced the LAWS correctly on the information available which included looking at the replay on the big screen! Is that provided for in the PROTOCOL? I find it fascinating that people can argue that a clearly incorrect decision be made to maintain a protocol. Ever stop to think the Ref's ethics were more along the line of I can't award a try that resulted from a beach off the laws.

 

[Blob]

You missed the whole point.

No I didn't. You don't seem to understand that the protocol puts in place an interpretation of the law. It supports the law in application. Arguing that refs should be able to pick and choose which protocols to follow in pursuit of a correct or just decision completely and utterly ignores that fact that in many case the correctness and justice of the decision is going to be a matter of judgement in any case and not a matter of obvious fact. Your approach will not eliminate poor decisions, it will introduce more subjectivity.